Method Research, Part Seven: Can we finally admit that narrative and journalism are incompatible?

I

jla105_001.png

II

If only reality was as simple as a comic book. Good guys are flawless. The bad guys cannot do anything right.

There is only one right answer. Everything is patriarchal with a Chosen One hero, and a horrific villain with no redeeming qualities.

This has been more than just comic book fodder in another time and place because those lines were erased a long time ago.

Reality is not simple. You may think you are always right, but the people you have harmed and wronged think otherwise.

Journalists have alienated groups and people with this game, however. They have a knee-jerk reflex that compels them to decree one side the Good Guy and the other the Bad Guy.

This narrative tick alienated audiences over time.

And now Covington happened.

At first, it was all simple, and now journalists are forced to backtrack and explain away bad information because it wasn’t simple. They did not ask the hard questions because that would have spoiled the narrative.

And from a snippet video, one narrative came out. Then a longer version made it more ambiguous…but then other things came out, but then some of those “other things” were not relevant, and so on and so forth.

All this mud-slinging on what? Why don’t we see journalists dig that hard when it comes to exposing child molesters or con men fleecing people of their life savings?

Here is a group of adults using their resources to go after a teenaged boy who may be a knucklehead, but he didn’t break any laws or pose a threat.

This is the very definition of insanity.

Do you notice that the press is going after Nick Sandmann, digging up things that do not have anything direct to do with him….but Jake Patterson who has been arrested for murdering two innocent people, and kidnapping their 13-year-old daughter as he kept a prisoner for almost three months, well, who care about him!

Think about that for a moment: I taught kids like Sandmann: smug, cocky, what have you, but not harmful.

Jake Patterson, on the other hand, is very harmful.

But in the drive to virtue-signal, the press ignores a threat and goes after the non-threat.

How brave of you all.

It would be one thing if Sandmann did harm, but a protest is a canned event. People are there to get media attention.

And why are we obsessing over a kid when there are lobbyists who are managing to persuade lawmakers to change the structure of society? Why isn’t the press going after them?

I wonder how many lobbyists, political operatives, and PR firms got what they wanted at the same time as this protest?

Simple: they want a narrative. Not facts, not information, not reality.

A story. A fable. A fairytale and morality play.

Nothing more.

When I went into journalism in order to study it, narrative was an obsession.

I had editors who got angry with me because I would not use narrative. I got in trouble for it.

Facts, I was told, were “dry” and “boring.” Make the pre-set narrative, I was told, regardless of the information I had.

That is why we have journalists tell people to dismiss critics: those are the people who break the narrative spell.

For example, the National Post decreed that a whistleblower was making himself over to be some sort of “spy.”

Memo to the National Post: All whistleblower are self-appointed, you morons. Every person who calls the police to report on witnessing a crime is self-appointed.

Every person who speaks out — whether or not they once engaged in the practice — is self-appointed.

We don’t have a government-sanctioned committee who decides who gets to speak out on stuff.

And every single reporter is self-appointed. They decide what stories to cover and who to interview. Their editors are self-appointed, too.

You verify claims. That’s the job. Was there a dark business going on or not?

The nincompoopity of the National Post is cringeworthy, but not surprising.

I saw the extent of rot and hubris up close.

It’s all about narrative, not facts.

Heaven forbid we educate the public with the real stuff going on around them.

It’s worse than bullies on a playground.

The story of Covington is that there was no story. It was over-covered with a pre-set narrative that had no basis in reality.

There aren’t any good guys or bad guys. Just flawed human beings muddling about being angry at something.

Because they don’t have facts or context so they have the information they can use to deal with the frustration that’s drowning them in order to get themselves to better places in a kinder and more productive way…

Toxic is the word of the year? You don't say!

Oxford Dictionary has decreed that the word of 2018 is toxic.

You don’t say!

The National Post has always been the Establishment’s best friend. They are sycophants to the Man, and do all that they can to scorn and deride anyone who dares question an authority figure.

Of course, that is propaganda, and the Post is nothing more than propaganda.

Christie Blatchford has made a living being a managandist, and she does her best to push around a university student who did not like a speech from a police officer and lodged a complaint against him to the Edmonton Police Service and demanded he be suspended.

In the column, Blatchford appeals to authority, and decrees that if other students didn’t mind, then the student was wrong, but then repeatedly makes fun of the young woman’s surname, as if that was a legitimate reason to put her down.

If you have to stoop to making fun of someone’s name, then you have no argument. That is bullying, and when you are picking on someone who has less clout than you and you are belittling them for complaining against an authority figure, you are indulging in cowardice.

People will complain and if something bothers them, they should. It doesn’t mean they will get results or be seen as correct by others, but that’s called feedback.

And if you have a problem, you should still speak up because there are times when you are right.

When you are young, you have to learn to complain and you should speak up and learn from trial and error. You will not be right every time. You will not get results every time, but you do not become discouraged just become some timid troll misuses a media outlet to try to break you into silence because they are slaves to the minion mindset.

And memo to Blatchford: a veteran police officer doesn’t a mommy hack to defend him, unless, of course, you think he is not competent enough to do so himself.

But 2018 has been a very toxic year.

In the US, voters didn’t get an actual platform from either the Democrats or Republicans, but cheered that they keep voting in the same patterns, thinking they have made progress. If voters weren’t drowning in toxic propaganda, they would have demanded both parties give them a reason to vote for them, and should have lodged complaints that they have two political parties that are allegedly different, but believe they are entitled to rule just because they are special.

Toxic.

And CNN and Jim Accosta are prematurely celebrating because a judge ruled being a spoiled brat is glorious and that immaturity and a lack of producing factual reports is no reason to revoke press credentials.

I wouldn’t spin the ruling as a victory for CNN. Trump has lost in court before, but consistently gets the last laugh, and his own way in a more unpredictable second round. Doug Ford lost in court when he slashed the number of seats on Toronto City Council, but he pulled out the notwithstanding clause, and the election went ahead with a leaner council.

And speaking of Ford, the Toronto Star has childish toxicity, decreeing in an editorial that, golly, life isn’t fair:

Ontarians did not sign up for deep cuts in services

So what? People don’t sign up for getting cancer, either. Reality doesn’t heed to what you will and will not “sign up” for, and Ontarians have been very stupid by allowing the previous regime to amass such a colossal debt that the next entity that owes more is an actual country.

But Ontario signed up for trouble because they thought they were getting something for nothing. Teachers threw fits because they wanted more than what the province actually had to give.

So yes, Toronto Star, Ontarians did sign up for it. They allowed themselves to be self-entitled and nannied for years, and then abandoned the party who enabled that to happen. Voters got greedy, and voted for the NDP, and the house of cards collapsed.

It is called consequences.

And voters in Ontario do have to take some responsibility and stop throwing temper tantrums in order to grow up and get the house in order.

A premier is not a concierge who is in charge of making you happy. The job is to guide and make complex and complicated decisions based on the bottom line and the resources at hand. Sometimes inequality is the most pressing matter and that is what needs top priority. Sometimes youth cannot find work because they have been inadequately prepared by those teachers who want even more for doing less, and that needs to be straightened out.

And sometimes the place is broke and needs to work on paying down their debt.

But a toxic editorial wants to incite people so that there is an identifiable people can blame for the woes of their own making.

An honest one looks at the books and reports on the numbers and sources of income.

But the toxicity has made people complacent: they have no facts to guide them.

Just toxic propaganda.

Facts are the cure for toxicity, but they are in scarce supply these days, and the stupidity and barbarism runs rampant unchecked…

National Post's Managandaist excuses for Tony Clement continue.

Christie Blatchford, the resident National Post’s managandist and scum bucket apologist, is excusing Tony Clement with the age-old bullshit story that boys will be boys and men have no self-control:

Clement a reminder when it comes to lust, brains are first thing to go

Bullshit.

Sex has nothing to do with it.

Because if men have no control over themselves, then it stands to reason we must strip them of all of their rights and powers, and herd them into cages where they can do no damage with their loins because they are beasts who must be oppressed because, by golly, they have no higher-brain functions and they are just going to fuck anything that moves.

It is funny how men have control of themselves when they want or need something.

Clement was practicing an age-old tradition of getting things he wanted with his unexpected uninhibited behaviour. Men who sexually harass others at work or even assault women are not doing it for the sex. It is just a weapon of terrorism or a way to unbalance, distract, confuse, or disarm a target directly or indirectly. Sex may be the excuse or justification, but that is a lie. Unremarkable men like Clement did not get as far as he did because he was blinded by lust.

He was merely emboldened because he got things his own way even though there was nothing extraordinary about him and he got spoiled and left with an impression that he was more cunning than people around him.

And if left unchecked, those ideas go to extremes in some others. It reminds me of Tori Stafford’s murderer, a paunchy nobody who had women do extraordinary things for him, such as one who turned tricks to get him a vehicle. Then when that power went to his head, he got one to lure a little girl for him to rape, torture, and murder.

Sex didn’t drive that killer. The rewards of power did. The weapon of choice may be sex, but if sex doesn’t do it, threats of blacklisting, deprivation, violence, or destruction will. It is no different than the manipulators who resort to crocodile tears and claim sadness or weaknesses when they are exposed as being untrustworthy and selfish, but when you are unmoved by their waterworks and excuses, suddenly they shut off the act, and anger and aggression quickly replace it.

It is funny how fast those Koh masks change depending on the angle of the lighting. Illuminate by denial and standing your ground, and you see that far from emotions guiding the person, it is pure, cold, calculating logic.

The West is a society of ignorant enablers who make big decrees, but never looking at any evidence refuting their bullshit stories. Clement is not some poor little boy lost who is a slave to his domineering penis. Those men get distracted and never get far in life. They don’t have the focus to succeed.

And Clement went far too high up the food chain for that argument to hold any water…

Canada's Dick Pic Scandal gets bigger all the time...

Gracious, Tony Clement got his white boy ass booted out of the federal Conservative Party.

Women are coming forward to counter his claims this kind of debauchery was just a one off.

Bullshit, of course. A man his age, education, and position is not some innocent babe in the woods, kids.

I heard managandist Christie Blatchford on the radio trying to make the case that somehow Clement had the same mental capacity as some gullible teenaged girl who gets knocked up the first time she had sex.

I don’t think so.

The Privy Council and the RCMP are investigating since, as I mentioned before, Clement has clearance, a position of power, and access to things and they have to make sure that didn’t get compromised along with his dignity and career.

His judgement is obviously whacked, but that is what happens when everyone is asleep at the wheel…

The National Post's intriguing obsession with being Steven Galloway's publicists.

The National Post is spewing how Steven Galloway is sue happy, which is nothing new for any Canadian male on the #MeToo hitlist.

Patrick Brown is doing it. So is Jeramy Dodds.

In the US, it is #MeToo.

In Canada, it is #NotMe!

It is the way sheltered little boys roll in this bland and timid country.

But the National Post insists on being PR flunkies for not just Steven Galloway, but also men like Jordan Peterson, the latter who is being represented in court by one of the Post’s own columnists/lawyers.

As they are cheerleading him.

That is not only unethical, but bizarre.

No one should have a newspaper at their disposal writing propaganda on their behalf.

I find this pattern very intriguing, however.

I remember finding the coordinated propagandistic attacks on Serbia during the civil war equally intriguing, and when I started to do basic digging, I stumbled upon FARA.

Because the Post is not a newspaper that bothers with actually reporting.

They are stenographers. They parrot press releases. They sit their asses in courthouses and are mere authority conduits. They are lapdogs by trade and design.

And it will be interesting to see the story behind this little piece of theatre…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Seven.

The National Post is not a publication with a whole lot of brain power. It is pure propaganda, and very bad propaganda at that that reminds me of those Canada's cringeworthy attempts at serialized television programs of the 1970s and 80s.

Probably their biggest problem is their absolute hate on women, and like rapists who hire female attorneys as a façade, the Post employs self-loathing females to deliver their biggest salvos against women.

Christie Blatchford is the resident hack for this kind of sophistry.

It is one thing to be controversial, and there is another thing to be a troll, and her style of woman-trolling is usually filled with logical fallacies galore, much like the rest of the Post which has no class, finesse, or deep understanding of the world around them. They constantly whine and wallow how they need money to survive, and yet never think at their own attitude problems as the source of their alienating people.

Take this piece of woman-bashing here:

Christie Blatchford: Can women continue to describe themselves as 'survivors' when courts say otherwise?

Christie Blatchford says this is a trend that makes her 'despair' because it does not allow the men who were deemed not to be guilty to recover their reputations

Yep, the courts never ever make a mistake, and her appeal to authority proves that Canada's educational system isn't all that, particular when it comes to educating journalists in Logic 101.

But the tone deaf white bread thinking has the usual drive-your-tank-through-the-holes problem with it.

If we take this demented reasoning, imagine using the same logic on people who were wrongfully convicted of rape and/or murder, and they keep saying to anyone who will listen that they are innocent, because, they are. They didn't do it. The end.

But tusing Blatchford's fragmented thinking, if the judge says he is a rapist and killer, then he should put up and shut up.

The judge says so, it must be true!

Let the authority do all the heavy thinking and let the journalist be the brainless groupie stenographer.

The cops can get it wrong. The jury can get it wrong. The judge can get it wrong.

All three can get it wrong.

And if someone who was raped says she was raped, even after the judge decrees that his yardstick trumps hers, guess what? She was still raped.

Canada is still a misogynistic country. Men can use being drunk as an excuse to be acquitted of rape, but should the woman who was assaulted be drunk, well, tough luck for her.

Our legal system is not actually based on empirical ways of assessing guilt or innocence. We do not have any standardized way of assessing human behaviour. For instance, our notions of how a victim is "supposed" to behave are Victorian, unrealistic, and not based on any empirical data.

We do not have the courts have any sort of notion of a victim-victimizer dynamic. How many people were abducted, raped, tortured, and given drugs, and held captive long enough that they no longer try to flee. They miss opportunities to get away because their behaviour has been modified by a predator. This is fact, and established in enough cases that we should be absolutely aware that if you are ever abducted and held for any length of time, regardless of your sex and age, the chances are great that you will endure rape and torture from your abuser for years.

But should someone rescue you, you no longer feel shackled to your captor, and you want him to go for jail, as you are reminded of what a liberated person is supposed to behave.

Does it mean these victims weren't victims?

Of course not. It is a form of folie a deux, where the healthy person becomes submissive to the dominant predator. The predator dictates the reality and controls it, and this forms unnatural habits in the victim.

The predator feels entitled and the victim, in a real way, enables these delusions, but not by free choice. It is because one person has set the terms of engagement and has rigged it in their favour to alter the prey's reality.

And this unnatural conditioning doesn't take very long -- all it takes is seconds. 

Often, these predators have a lot of experience training victims to be compliant than the victims have experience standing up to predators. It is an uneven fight to begin with.

And predators have charm and know what to say and how to parse their words. Ted Bundy lured his victims with his friendly and smooth demeanour as he also didn't raise alarm bells with authorities for years.

So you have someone who can charm their way out of a jam and convince a judge he is innocent, while the frazzled victim who was ambushed won't be as polished because they aren't as practiced at lying.

And the judge falls for it.

Judges are not gods. They are fallible, and we don't bother to question how the court system is set up, how fair it is, and whether or not there are superior ways to find truths.

A judge may believe a drunk woman who didn't close her legs isn't a victim. We have had enough judges in Canada think that way -- and that judge has no right to tell me whether or not I am a victim. I was there. The judge wasn't.

Blatchford does an awful lot of worrying for those predatory men, who need her meddling as they are incapable of standing up for themselves. She worries about men who are decreed innocent and how people will look at them -- never mind the women whose attackers were convicted, and they are painted as troublemakers, and often still not believed in light of evidence that says they are telling the truth.

But the Post itself's subtext is never trust a woman, and if they hired the sketchy ones, they should remember not everyone is like them.

It sexist subtext runs far and deep at the Post. Take this headline in the Post for instance:

Former hostages Joshua Boyle and his American wife trade abuse accusations in child custody battle

The Guardian had this headline to the same story:

Ex-hostage says husband abused her while family held captive in Afghanistan

The Globe and Mail had the Canadian Press story headlined in this way:

Former hostages Joshua Boyle, Caitlan Coleman in custody battle

And the Toronto Star had the same Canadian Press story with this headline:

Publication ban lifted in Joshua Boyle custody dispute

Notice the difference? The Post cannot just say Boyle is the only one: they have to include his wife as being labelled abusive. Two of the headlines completely bypass it and focus on other details of the case.

But lo and behold? What have we here:

The Ottawa judge who considered the case said she had not seen anything to suggest that Coleman suffers a mental health issue that would affect her ability to parent.

“The court does have evidence, on the other hand, that CC (Caitlan Coleman) is healthily and protectively parenting the children,” the judge noted as she granted Coleman temporary custody of the children.

The judge also granted full temporary custody to Coleman as she moved with the children to the US, and barred Boyle from contacting her.

So why didn't the Post worry about Coleman's rep when the judge made that decree?

Why would they blare that in a headline when she could now forever be seen as a bad person with those accusations?

Because Coleman is a woman, and to the Post, women are all devious little liars.

That may be how things roll at the Post, but it is an archaic mindset of a more oppressive era.

But it ain't reality.

It is one thing to call women who do wrong on the carpet, but to paint all women with the same brush is not news, but propaganda, and hate speech.

An alternative to journalism has no place for games like that. It has room for facts and reason as well as context.

It is not about sucking up to predatory boors to curry favour with them as you hedge your bets that the opposite sex have nothing to offer.

That's not what journalism was ever supposed to be about. It is not a lobby group to prop up the incompetent.

It is about presenting the facts without playing mommy to grown men who make their own messes, and should be expected to clean them up all by themselves.

A true and honest chronicler gives the facts.

Nothing more, and nothing less...

Sexism is alive and well in headlines, even in 2018...

The link (FixedIt: Accused rapist’s claims are not headlines) provides a very good example of how the press treats women and men differently when it comes to taking sides, and the author of this piece provides a far better rewrite of what should have been said.

Good on Jane Gilmore for pointing it out, but if she wants to enlighten the boors at the National Post, she would have her hands full...it is a publication where even the women are raving misogynists...

News Talk 1010's Inability to face reality continues.

No one can spin evil like a Canadian media outlet. It has become their specialty.

The Soviets during the Cold War era had this sort of positive propaganda: they had serial killers running amok, the mob terrorizing people, children vanishing, poverty, government corruption, but you would never hear it on the news, comrades.

Everything was just peachy keen, and over time, people started to laugh whenever the news played because when your kid has been swallowed up in the night and you can't feed your family as you are sitting in the dark without electricity, sooner or later, reality grabs your by the throat and squeezes as it stares you in the face and spits at you for ignoring it to the point you turned it into a monster when you could have prevented its illness by facing it when there was still a chance.

Canada is taking pages from that playbook, and it has gotten out of control.

I suppose as journalism collapsed, those industry-destroying knuckleheads are all auditioning to work in public relations and want to show the various firms out there how good they are at spinning rot.

Toronto has so much rot that it needs an independent government or global agency to start overseeing it as it audits it. You had a serial killer burying body parts in people's yards. He might as well just dumped them out in the open and it would have taken the same amount of time to catch him. You had a young man drive a van into a group of people for no reason. You had another man (who journalists are bending over backwards to justify his murderous actions, with no proof, that the killing spree was some sort of mental illness whoopsie, no biggie, kids!) walk down the street shooting people. Nearby Mississauga had a bombing. We had two innocent little girls shot in a playground.

On July 1, four people were injured in a shooting

Right after another shooting where a rapper was murdered.

Because there was that whole first week this July where 11 people got shot in four days.

Have we forgotten about Tess Richey? I haven't. It happened less than a year ago.

We can look at statistics, assuming, of course, they are accurate and inclusive, but violence doesn't always come with a gun.

In Toronto, it comes in a van, bombs, knives, and all sorts of other weapons, too.

These killing sprees are happening with increasing frequency, but Toronto media, wanting to pretend that living in Toronto is sophisticated and stuff, are always looking for "positive news."

You can have every blessing in the world, but one bad thing nullifies all the good stuff. 

If a ten-year-old girl gets killed out on the street or two girls on a playground get shot in broad daylight, you have a sick city.

It is not as if the Toronto media does not understand the concept of bad. They are always comparing themselves to cities where there are a lot of shootings, such as Chicago, and then crow that they are "safer".

You know, kids, I was in Chicago with my mom last year.

We walked out in the streets well past midnight all by ourselves downtown.

We were not shot or robbed or hassled in any way.

For whatever reason, people thought we were plainclothes police officers and kept referring to us as "Cagney and Lacey."

mgid_ao_image_logotv.jpeg

I called dibs on Cagney.

I have also slept in my car and gotten dressed as I was naked in New York City parked on Broadway, driven at 3 o'clock in the morning in Detroit and Baltimore, went to concerts in Orlando and Miami at midnight, got caught in the middle of a police chase with a shooter in Washington, DC, walked in malls in Buffalo where people had their guns where you could see them, and seen signs like this one at my swanky hotel in Chicago.

20170530_112712_HDR.jpg

Those were not safe places. They have serious problems.

Just because nothing happened to me doesn't mean a thing. There is something called empathy.

It reminds me of a line from a parody song by the Royal Canadian Air Farce from years ago:

The Cossacks, they come to loot and to pillage,

To me, it's okay; it wasn't my village.

That's Toronto journalism, except, the looting and pillaging is happening in their village, maybe just not on their street.

For now, at least. 

That kind of pathological logic was on as usual on the "Round Table" this morning on News Talk 1010.

The obnoxious spinning of murder into something that is not a big deal is beyond propaganda: it is enabling violence. If you have had numerous violent attacks in a city where there is strict gun control laws in one year, and your hypothesis is the city is "safe", then you have no pulse on reality. None. You have no empathy. You ask no questions. You do not wonder whether it may be safe for you and your demographic, but it may be unsafe for other fellow citizens.

You are apologists for murder, sweeping bullet casings under the rug, and then tell the little people that Toronto is a safe and glorious city.

No, it isn't. How many rapes do you have? How many convictions? How many street shootings are going on? How many stabbings? Toronto has reached crisis level violence, but continues to behave as if theirs was a civilized city.

If the shooting of over a dozen people doesn't spark you to see that there is a problem, then nothing will. You expect people to settle for garbage and then crow about living in trash. Instead of focussing on how to solve the problem, you are saying there is no problem because you have A Taste of the Danforth which will obviously outweighs murdering teenagers and little girls on that street because, hey, they're just females. 

They probably asked for it.

After all, that little man-agandist Christie Blatchford was on the panel, spewing something else so vile that it defies all common sense.

At the 11 minute mark on the audio link I provided, there is a discussion about the Highway of Tears and the plight of First Nations girls and women. At the 11:37 mark, Blatchford basically blames those girls for getting slaughtered because these destitute women with no guidance, options, supports, education, or life experience are forced to take risks by getting into trucks with strangers.

There were signs on the highway warning them not to go...she babbled, assuming, of course, those girls could read. Or were without mental health issues.

Or had other options. Those girls entire lives are traumatic and under siege. Many of these young women were taken out of their homes as kids by social services, sexually abused, exposed to violence and drugs, and are treated like disposable trash, being kicked from one foster home to another. (As an aside, when I moved and changed phone numbers about fifteen years ago, my new number was the old number for some placement agency or service used by CAS. I kept getting faxes at 2 o'clock in the morning with lists of children needing emergency shelter and placement, most from Northern Ontario. Those lists still haunt me).

I have had interactions with dispossessed young women in Canada in all sorts of capacities, from doing art therapy with those in halfway houses to volunteering and socially. It is easy to be rational when you have some stability during your formative years and are not tossed out in the middle of the night or you come home and your family up and leaves you with no forwarding address.

Women's shelters are always full. Prisons, too. Hospital emergency rooms have many of these women who do not know which way is up.

You don't kill these women. You don't rape them, either. There is no excuse or loophole.

You know, Ms Blatchford, your absolute inability to comprehend the realities of other women is horrific. You were on the same panel who made excuses for a murderer of two young women because he was supposedly "mentally ill." Mentally ill people do not kill. Evil people kill.

I mean, if the press has compassion for a murderer who is supposedly sick, why do we assume these young women don't have the same problem?

I did not hear you knock down a killer or make him responsible for having the presence of mind to take a gun, walk over to a crowded area, and aim and shoot with absolute coolness people he did not know, but boy-o, do you love to blame every woman who was victimized in any way, shape or form.  

Journalism is dead for a reason. Because of logic like that. It makes excuses, misrepresents reality, blames victims, excuses predators, and has some sort of psychopathic desire to pretend problems don't exist, and if they do, let's blame the victims for it.

At what point will Toronto news media realize that hiding bad things doesn't make them go away?

Probably never. They destroyed their own profession, and now want to take down everyone else in their wake.

National Post's Man-aganda continues, but they ain't the only cowards in journalism.

I

Jonathan Kay may not have the ability to understand that women's chromosomes in no way prevent them from spewing man-aganda, but then again, that fourth and last stage of Jean Piaget's is a tricky one to reach.

The National Post thinks it has some sort of legitimate way of spewing misogyny without being called on the carpet for it.

No, only someone with bigoted filters would think there are intellectual, moral, or philosophical differences based on external features.

Memo to the National Post: if men can be feminists, then women can be self-loathers, too, especially those without talent who just do whatever the Big Boys tell them because courage and original thought take real guts, talent, and ovaries to pull off.

The suggestion that it is otherwise is a very bigoted assumption that convicts them of the charge, but no one could ever accuse anyone at the Post of being a deep thinker.

Maybe if you actually spoke to everyone and informed them with actual information and not dumb sophistry, you would not be reduced to whining in public about how you cannot make ends meet because people are not buying your product.

The Post is a man-agandist publication. Nothing else. They hold the trembling little gonads of those scared little boys who need to know they are not to blame for anything just to reassure them.

Fox News Channel perfected it, and it is something I took apart in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

Some men are men: they do not fall apart if their employers are women. They do not harm anyone, male or female because they have courage, compassion, intelligence, ability, morals, and bravery. They get ahead on the job because they are competent and innovative. They actually know how to behave and are fantastic people because their testosterone is not afraid of the presence of estrogen.

Others are little boys. They thump their chests, but run to mommy and daddy whenever someone sees their bullying is just to prevent those of quality from besting them. The Post enablers those men who hold society back and force the rest of us to waste time and resources cleaning up their messes.

And considering how badly the Post's fortunes have fallen, they are trying to hold on to as many little boys as they can. They give free front page advertising to Steven Galloway as if his self-pity was Very Important News. They are forever running around like irrational chickens, screaming #MeToo is a witch hunt ecause they are too thick to get it. The irrationality has gone overboard, and their propaganda blinds them to the obvious.

But they think they can fool people into thinking they are some sort of legitimate news outlet.

No, you're not. You spew man-aganda, even if you have a few chicks and broads willing to do the dirty work for you.

The sex of the one who spews propaganda is immaterial and does not legitimize your slop.

It is the content of your argument, the structure of your arguments, the scope of your vision, the facts you choose to ignore, and the inherent rigs of your work that actually determines whether or not you are a legitimate news source, or an apologist for incompetent men in power.

The race and gender of those puking out your sophistry is not some sort of protective force field. It is a misdirection, nothing more.

Christie Blatchford happens to be the Post's loudest man-aganda and gets a pay check regardless of how many lives get mucked up because of primitive thinking.

Like this piece of silliosity. I love the preface of that video:

Trudeau’s #MeToo moment has once again proved that if women are going to come forward with allegations, it should be in the courts not in newspapers, according to Postmedia columnist Christie Blatchford. The courts are the one place where both men and women can get due process.

Due process? You may cover the courts, but doubtful you have been sucked into that mindless machine and been eaten alive.

Child molesters get a couple of years when they are convicted of assaulting scores of children for years. The End to the argument of Due Process. No due process. Just a game of make pretend as we torture people and waste their lives and raise their hopes to get spat at with their own tax dollars. If there is any definitive proof that we allow society to become heartless psychopathic barbarians, it is how we run our courts when it comes to sexual assault trials. 

Let's just take today's legal news and see how great the Post's theory applies. In this case, a judge dismissed a sexual assault case against four teenage boys who were accused of assaulting an intoxicated teenage a girl, and they were cleared because she was drunk at the time.

And according to Blatchford, this is reasonable because an Authority figure decreed it so.

Let's see: if you are intoxicated, your judgement is acknowledged by the law and scientific research to be so bad, that:

1. You cannot give consent to drive and if you do, you are arrested because you do not have the mental capacity to operate a vehicle.

2. You cannot operate a plane or boat, either.

3. Children's Aid will take your children away from you until you go into rehab.

4. A drunk police officer, judge, teacher, lawyer, doctor, and babysitter caught on camera while intoxicated on the job would cause a scandal.

Why?

Because your ability to make decisions is garbage when you are bladdered.

But the judge seems to set a double standard when it comes to teenage girls:

"The issues here focus on consent," O'Donnell said. "Was the complainant capable of consent? For example, did she understand the nature of the acts in the car to the degree that she could reject them or agree with them?

"This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to consent to sex. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity."

Okay, that is Authority decree, but let us replace some of his words with something just as important:

This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to operate a bus full of schoolchildren and drive them home. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity.

In fact, if that is the thinking, we should ban any law against drinking and driving entirely. I think police officers should be allowed to be intoxicated while handling firearms, too. They can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity to fire a loaded weapon.

The judge's Authority logic decreed it so; so, obviously, it must be true.

Let us make it all legal so that at least we can be consistent with our primative sanctioned lunacy.

So, we have, to put it mildly, a legal system that is run by whim that has no basis in evidence or fact -- but mostly on whatever lobby groups do a superior job to convince lawmakers to back off with certain laws or at least water them down.

And the National Post thinks this is a good and glorious thing, and too bad the populace is meddling by making some demand for rights or something.

No wonder the National Post's colour is Minion Yellow.

images-14.jpeg

Appealing to Authority is what they do best, after all. No wonder they are upset that the current federal regime didn't give them money to enable their incompetency. They sucked up to them and everything!

Because that's how passive cowards navigate through the world. Whatever the Man tells them, that's good enough for them, male or female. Equality means equality.

Once upon a time, you had journalists risk their lives and cover dangerous things. Some would reject anyone who decreed to be an Authority, regardless of political affiliation.

But then came the dregs who thought appeasing Authorities and praising them was the way they could get ahead. Short cut your way into a "career" as a "journalist"!

They were the ones who had no talent, just a conniving nature, and they would in no way go out and do real and dangerous work, because they knew they could not handle it.

Like those hiding under the National Post banner.

But they are hardly the only ones.

II

#MeToo was a social media-based movement. It exploded among educated, white collar women in the US who endured the war strategies of incompetent men who distracted their competition by terrorizing said competition by various means that would do the most emotional damage.

Sex had nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment was not about the sex: it was the way of gaining dominance by creating an invisible barrier to make rivals hesitate and feel inferior enough not to go after the same brass ring.

So when the Post frames this issue that this is about sex, this is mere smoke and mirrors. This is about workplace terrorism and sabotage.

You had previous generations of women endure this degradation in silence because they thought if they did endure it and broke barriers, their daughters and granddaughters wouldn't have to put up with it, too.

That was a big tactical error.

These were the same women who wanted Hillary Clinton as their president. Clinton was a symbolic choice on many levels: she was an Endurer (but she was also an enabler, and the reason I never cared for her), and the reward for endurance and patience was to finally reach the top.

Except she got easily clobbered by Donald Trump.

But not just clobbered: her supporters leaked that infamous tape of him crowing about being able to harass any woman he wants with her blessing and impunity. 

If all that dung-swallowing was actually worth it, people would have been outraged, not vote for Trump, and installed the first woman in the White House.

It didn't happen.

It didn't happen.

A lifetime of pretending getting abused on the job was the price to pay to pave the road for the next generation was proven to be a con game.

And those well-educated, white collar women who got abused, and even raped on the job and said nothing, snapped and revolted because they suffered a real and terrible shock that not Everything Will Work Out In The End.

All those affirmative sayings they plastered on their walls at home proved to be the same horse-dung they swallowed on their claw and crawl to break a glass ceiling that wouldn't break.

And so #MeToo exploded on the scene and resonated, but its epicentre was the US.

It is a legitimate movement. It is not a witch hunt. It is what happens when an entire generation without their own war manual get disillusioned and are forced to face reality when their own home-grown strategies prove to be worthless.

But in Canada, we are not in the same place because we are a nannied and sheltered people.

If we lose our safety net and are forced to survive on our abilities and wits for real, the shock will be far greater than what spurred #MeToo.

And we are there.

Canadian journalists are beyond there, but because their lens is that of a coward's, they are still in the denial stage. 

Because if they saw reality for what it is, they wouldn't be supporting and begging governments for anything as they sucked up to Authorities, hoping for a paltry little patronage appointment.

They would be rioting on the streets.

Really, that sad and pathetic lot have nothing left to lose.

Because those Authorities they drool over so much have played those arrogant and oblivious empty-heads for the fools that they are. Fish in a barrel, nothing more.

The problem is they think they are still something special because they get invited to a cocktail party here or there, or because they hang out in the corridors hanging on the every word of some Authority to report about it to the little people.

But because #MeToo is a social media movement, journalists could not stop the movement from making damage to their own profession.

CBS had their Charlie Rose problem, and it should not be surprising that one of their bosses ran to a law firm that brags that they "kill stories" about the deeds of delinquent little mediocre boys pretending to be Great Men.

Oh, and the one of the principle members of that legal cabal doing the story killing is a woman.

Which is the go-to sex many sexual predators run to in order to make it seem that they are not predators. As if.

Journalism did not fare so good during #MeToo. Despite hiring legal enablers to sweep their sins under the rug, the tiny fraction that did slime out was ugly enough.

It was the biopsy that proved why the profession no longer had any credibility left.

They were no better than the people they labelled villains over the years.

They were never for the people.

They weren't for the poor, the sick, or the dispossessed.

They weren't for people with darker pigments, or people who toiled in blue collar jobs.

They weren't for people whose sexual orientation was not heterosexual.

They weren't for children as they never bothered reporting anything to them.

They weren't for over half the population who are women.

They weren't for foreigners.

They weren't even for most men.

Just the well-heeled ones.

Man-aganda

And only if you were the right sort of man. Not the used up and broken souls who lost their health in factories.

They did away with Labour sections and called it Business, you sillies.

And when their snobbery got the better of them, they ran to those Great Men to bail them out.

Memo to the Post: they no longer have any use for you.

You relics went out with the trash years ago.

But when it is garbage your little boys and girls are spewing, it is very hard to notice the difference...

 

Memo to the National Post: Stop being petty because you don't have the CBC's sugar-daddy. Your demise is your own doing.

Oh, boo hoo.

The National Post is behaving like the petty and jealous obnoxious sibling these days, with their columnist Christie Blatchford playing the role of whiny tattle tale.

The column hits a new low and is absolutely devoid of any actual newsworthiness, just kvetching.

The headline lets readers know all about how unfair life is:

Mainstream media is starving — but certainly not the CBC

Mainstream media is not homeless or in some detention centre, you insufferable brats.

Your own willful arrogance, rigidity, and ignorance brought you to this point. Do not blame the government for being incapable of keeping up with a changing landscape and not enabling your delusions.

The worse of this sophistry selfish tirade comes right here:

But on top of all that, Canadian newspapers directly compete against the CBC website, which is of course richly subsidized by the taxpayers.

God forbid Ottawa should start to subsidize newspapers too. As a journalist, the thought gives me the shudders.

But the government might stop subsidizing CBC online; it might tell the CBC to get out of digital advertising, though of course there’s no guarantee any of those dollars would flow to newspapers.

Both Postmedia and the Star this week announced yet more voluntary buyouts and/or layoffs and, for Postmedia, more shuttering of small-town and community papers. The situation is frankly desperate.

So what? Hundreds of businesses in Canada tank with no government help.

We have First Nations communities with no electricity or running water, too.

If you cannot keep up, you have no business being in business. The end.

People have alternative outlets. If isolated communities are not reading your drivel, that says something about how rotten your product happens to be.

Journalism never had the discipline, and shame on them for not being a more responsible industry.

As for the CBC, it is bad enough taxpayers are forced to be their sugar-daddies and mommies,; they do not need to be saddled up with more sugar-babies, and that is precisely what your column is advocating. Perhaps the lot of Postmedia can put on spangled bikinis and shake your collective booties in your cameras the way all those throwaway teens do to survive.

CBC has been shilling bad acting and propaganda for years: if you people were not sleepwalking, you could have exposed their horrendous and pathetic reportage. My favourite is Margaret Evans' dispatches from Syria, where she is telling her little crew to keep quiet in a so-called war zone in Syria all while their big huge shiny lights are beaming in the darkness.

Yeah, the snipers are blind, but have super-hearing. Nice try, you goobers.

The CBC has no business being freeloaders on taxpayers's backs. It is not as if they are doing anything remotely journalistic. It's a sham.

But neither is Postmedia.

If Postmedia wants money, they can learn to earn it, just like everyone else.

You cannot do the same thing and expect a different outcome.

If you are not willing to change and admit all the things you have done wrong, don't expect taxpayers to enable you.

No one feels sorry for you, nor should they.

Sooner or later, there is a piper to be paid, and now journalists have to cough it up.

Stop trying to incite civil wars in peaceful countries, and expect to have a tax base to bail you out.

Give it up.

And move on.

The National Post's Woman Problem

Nothing is perfect, including #MeToo, but #MeToo forcefully addressed the issue of what happens to women when they are sexually harassed and abused in such a way that it is difficult to prove it. Predators have practice and prey are ambushed. The United States was always Canada's bolder and braver counterpart. The Americans fight for what they believe in. Canadians try to maneuver and appease to steal away what they can. When Donald Trump called Canadians "smooth", he was letting them know he sees the gambit, and isn't impressed by it.

#MeToo is an un-Canadian movement, and that is unfortunate. Canadians do not like confrontation. They do not like to admit there is a problem. If everyone just shuts up and endures, then the façade is good enough.

#MeToo was the admission in the United States that all was not well. You have highly educated women in positions of real power who were cornered the same way the high school drop-out waitress was cornered by a superior. The women who who spoke out did not want to do so. They did not want people who wished them ill to get any pleasure knowing they were down because those same people are going to gleefully make jabs that the story is either a lie, or the woman did something to earn her abuse.

No civilized society can tolerate that.

#MeToo used social media in a novel way, and it did so because the courts are rigged in such a way that victims and accusers are not even afterthoughts. Most of the measures of guilt or innocence are not even scientific or empirical. There are a lot of assumptions based on folksy logic, nothing more, and there is also the assumption that the only way to determine guilt or innocence is for an accused to be innocent until proven guilty.

If you object, then, of course, people jump down your throat, and assume you want people to be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and that isn't the case.

We need a system that makes no assumptions one way or the other. We have never quite gotten out of our binary reflexes.

#MeToo's longevity is thanks in part to the fact women are not served in the justice system, and nothing has changed.

But to the National Post, the women who dare challenge an Establishment is a horrible, terrible thing.

As soon as there was a tiny lull, they pounced again, trying to reclaim the narrative that the status quo is glorious because women cannot be trusted to tell the truth, using the UK as an example.

Who cares what another country does? We are dealing with our country. Canadian women do not file reports or press charges over there.

It is an attempt at misdirection: let's look everywhere else but our own nation. We have a justice system that has no understanding of the dynamics of abuse.

For starters, there is a base assumption that if a woman goes back to an abuser, there was no abuse. There was no crime.

If that is the case, then husbands who murder the wives they have beaten shouldn't get charged because, hey, she lived with the guy; ergo there was no abuse or crime.

Of course there was abuse and crime. I don't care if someone goes back. We need to establish why people go back, and we do have clues. We see it with cults. We know there are economic factors. We know about grooming and priming. We know about cultural expectations. We know about habit formation.

We have to stop focussing on irrelevant details and start asking simple questions: did you hit her at this point in time? 

And then start asking more questions from there.

We cannot have a functional justice system unless we have a better understanding of human behaviour, and we don't.

Because we have journalists who aren't schooled in psychology. You cannot proclaim to study people and then be utterly clueless to how people actually think and behave.

The National Post is a depressing read: there is no connect to humanity in its pages. It is pure seething sophistry trying to prop up things that need to be questioned.

You do not have a static system and then expect progress or improvement. Women are dealing with the same basic justice system that was around when they were still considered properties of their husbands.

And that's a serious problem.

But the Post has decided to be apologists for rot and ignorance. They have a serious women issue because of it.

If you are going to proclaim to be a chronicler of reality, then you have to start dealing with the whole of reality.

And the reality is you have too many people who are being abused with no true recourse to correct it...

Do Canadian journalists get why they lost their clout? Not at all.

I was listening to Newstalk 1010 this morning where the host was talking to a newspaper columnist about the case of Marie-Maude Denis, a Radio-Canada journalist who is being forced by the courts to reveal her sources. Her story led to arrests, and now one of the parties on trial are claiming a variety of things, and that her source had a vested interest.

Canada never had the same protections for journalists as they have in the US, and mostly never needed to as journalists tend to be highly deferential to authority. This case is interesting in its own right, given the defence has used an effective strategy for its own fishing expedition, but considering the trial would have evidence that is not the actual story Denis filed, I am not certain how relevant putting her on the stand to make her reveal her sources would actually be.

Should she be compelled to reveal her sources? I would say no, but journalists often make promises they cannot keep in the hopes of getting information.

But the conservation about this case was more interesting to me, with the typical snooty assertion that everything was great until the waters were muddied with bloggers and citizen journalists.

Except Denis is not a citizen journalist.

And the argument falls apart on other factors: journalists, particularly in Canada, were never disciplined the way they should have been if they wished to be the ones entrusted with disseminating information. You need no special training or licence to be a reporter, for instance. There are no standards; ergo, there is no discernible difference between a "real" journalist and a citizen journalist -- one is in the army, and the other is a mercenary.

They both do essentially the same thing, but journalists have a little more money to show for it.

So it is not as if journalists were ever prepared. They could have been more effective at their jobs, and then the differences between their work and the citizen journalist would be obvious. You cannot use a Clubhouse Excuse why journalists have become weak and unable to fight back when people they have slagged in their stories retaliate. You put out a mediocre product; you cannot whine when the knock-offs look the same or better than your work.

The segment also brought up the case of Antoine Trépanier, another Radio-Canada reporter who was arrested for "criminally harassing" a source he was trying to interview, even though she had not exactly turned down his request when that would have been enough to make him not ask her again.

I am not unfamiliar with those kinds of sources, though the first time it happened was when I was just starting out and I was asked to write an advertorial about a store and the "source" who kept putting it off, but always said to "call him back" called my editor to complain I was "harassing" him. Never mind that it was advertising and it was paid for by the store's owner and then told the man (who was the manager) to give me a quick interview.

You get people like that all of the time -- those who do not know how to decline a request. The police should not have arrested him -- they should have spoken to him, he could have easily provided proof that the potential source had made no indication that she felt harassed.

The problem is that the profession never got its act together. It never had standards the way way a surgeon has standards. We never progressed was a discipline, and that's why everything got destroyed. People who are doing bad things can easily take advantage of that weakness, and that shouldn't be happening in 2018.

Because it doesn't matter if there are citizen journalists or bloggers -- if you have a system, the results elevate your work over the amateur versions of it. It is no excuse, and yet journalists whine about their glory days, never realizing it was that glory that brought them to their ruin in the first place...

#MeToo was never native to Canadian sensibilities, and it shows with the very different fates of two journalists on the Hitlist.

The National Post may have their whiners lamenting in columns that CTV's Paul Bliss was doomed because #MeToo is just a big old mean witch hunt ("There was no other way this story could end but in Paul Bliss being 'disappeared'", didn't you know?), but that's just a confirmation bias speaking. Steve Paikin was also accused, but he is still not "disappeared". He hosted the PC leadership debate. He is still on his show and still has his blog, with the latest entry begin on March 8. Journalists all enthusiastically marched lockstep in support of Paikin, but those same apologists stayed deafeningly silent when it came to Bliss.

So the notion that getting on that list means a foregone conclusion is highly inaccurate.

The impact of #MeToo -- a strictly Made in the USA movement has been profound in the US far more than it has in Canada. The impact on Canadian politicians has been more significant than it has on US politicians. Patrick Brown got shown to the door at lightening speed, and no one was happier than his own party. They weren't hanging their heads down in shame. They weren't condoning his alleged behaviour. They were relieved and marched on in uncharted territory moving ahead in that ensuing chaos quite cheerily.

But when it came to some other men on the list, journalists got pouty and indignant. How dare anyone accuse journalists of being less than perfect?

While the US #MeToo also enthusiastically got rid of some swamp insects in their communications, Canadian has been much slower to act, even though sexual harassment is just as prevalent here as it is over there.

Bliss was turfed, but so far, it looks like Paikin will have no trouble weathering this one out. #MeToo is not a witch hunt here, no matter what the fear-mongers decree. The US had its shock with Trump's obvious victory that they didn't see coming or had the cunning or clout to stop. Canada had no such overt reckoning to face. It is a difference in ortgeist, not zeitgeist, and why two neighbouring countries are having very different outcomes with an identical movement.

But, as usual, the National Post does not have the savvy or the sensitivity to see it.